When Obama and Biden met with Al Gore on Tuesday, they were purposefully bland about what was discussed. Now that Obama has revealed his green team, it appears they may have been asking Gore's blessing. Of the four environment/energy appointees announced (or leaked), three worked in the Clinton/Gore EPA, and one, Carol Browner, was a staff aide and personal friend to Gore.
Nancy Sutley, Obama's choice to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), was special assistant to Browner when Browner ran the EPA. Lisa Jackson worked in the Superfund program out of the New York office and is reportedly good friends with Mary Nichols, another Clinton EPA vet on the short list for EPA.
There's some interesting history behind this team. Way back in the mists of time, when Gore was a Senator from Tennessee, he had among his aides Browner and Kathleen (Katie) McGinty. Both were close allies -- McGinty helped him research Earth in the Balance and accompanied him to Rio in 1992. Browner was his legislative director from '88-'91.
When Gore moved into the White House as VP, he was largely given control over the environmental portfolio; Browner was installed as head of EPA and McGinty as head of CEQ.
In their respective positions, the two clashed, with Browner pushing for strict air pollution regs and McGinty (and Gore) pushing her to water them down. This is from a 1999 National Journal piece:
In November 1996, [Browner] proposed a new set of clean air regulations so strict that criticism came not just from all the usual sources - Detroit, the oil industry, and the conservative press - but also from inside the administration. The White House economic team fought her, and not just behind closed doors. In early 1997, Gene B. Sperling, director of Clinton's National Economic Council, and Kathleen A. McGinty, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, publicly urged Browner to increase by 20 percent the limit on particulate matter allowed into the air. When Browner balked, McGinty - who, like Browner, was a former Gore aide - said publicly, "Who does she think she is, Joan of Arc?" Even two members of Gore's staff leaked word that the Veep was "furious" that his former aide hadn't consulted him more closely.
If Browner was intimidated by this kind of talk, she did a good job of hiding it. In interviews, she replied calmly that it was Gore himself who had taught her "to stand up for what I believe in."
... Clinton did ultimately back Browner.
"I think she put [Clinton] in a box from which he could not escape," said Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., an opponent of the tough standards.
(Not for nothing, this demonstrates Browner's storied ability to navigate bureaucracies without compromising policy.) Rumor has it that the bad blood never quite dissipated between Browner and McGinty, though they both remained close to Gore. McGinty was widely viewed as a lock for EPA head in a Gore administration and Browner, who advised Gore on his 2000 run, was thought to be in the running for chief of staff.
When Gore lost, Browner retreated to the private sector and McGinty decamped to Pennsylvania to become the states Director of Environmental Quality.
Fast forward to the present: Browner is running Obama's environmental transition and McGinty, though widely rumored as a shortlist pick for EPA, CEQ, or climate czar, ends up with ... nothing. Instead, Browner's top aide at EPA, Nancy Sutley, ends up at CEQ. Lisa Jackson, who worked in the EPA for 16 years -- eight under Browner, running the Superfund program -- ends up at EPA.
Browner herself is, of course, the ringmaster -- the hub of the Obama environmental team. Some lefties have complained that Obama is stocking his administration with Clinton vets/retreads, and that is certainly true here. It's Browner's Second Chance.
Enviros unhappy with the Clinton administration environmental record -- and that's quite a few of them -- may blanche at this, which taps into the ongoing argument over whether Obama's a real liberal, and what he meant by promising change. Do his appointments mean he's backing off on his progressive proposals or are they a sign that progressive is the new center? That argument, I must say, has gotten somewhat tedious. (Already! And he hasn't even taken office yet.)
My take is, when Obama promised change, he wasn't talking about plucking amateurs from outside government. He was talking about a change from incompetence and stagnation to competence and progress. The progress is in the agenda; the competence is in the staffing. Browner, Sutley, and Jackson are all known for effective administration. They are bureaucrats, in the Obama Era "bureaucrat" isn't an insult. Seasoned hands are back on the policy wheels, and this time, they'll have a chance to push for an agenda much bolder than anything contemplated under Clinton.
And strangely enough, the whole thing will be yet another chapter in Gore's Revenge.
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts
As a progressive, I define the word with synonyms, such as "innovative" and "new." I look at progressive candidates, as candidates who challenge the status quo by inventing new ways of looking at and responding to the world around us. As far as Obama is concerned, I see him as a progressive candidate with the way he ran his campaign and is running his transition--using the internet for open discussion his cabinet choices, his transition team, and the public; bringing people together for house parties to discuss topics and to send the results of those discussions back to his office; the targeted canvassing techniques he used to reach particular sections of voters during the campaign. All of these were/are progressive. Overall, however, I don't think of Obama as being a progressive candidate, and I don't think he wants to be viewed as one because that's not what he's about. He's about pragmatism and bringing all people together, regardless of ideology, and he has said this over and over. Still, from the speeches he has given, I was expecting MUCH more progressive choices for the EPA and top environmental posts. For education? No. For foreign affairs? No. Financial policy? No. But for the environment? Absolutely because he made himself sound like a progressive in this area. Choosing Chu is the kind of great choice I expected from Obama. Browner? Wake me up when it's over.
Enviros, liberals, and progressives are used interchangeably in this argument, and they are not interchangeable ideals. Yes, these three groups come together and work together in government, and, yes, they share many common ideals with one another, but they diverge, as well.
therein lies the problem Browner is a brown nosed bureaucrat who will not be progressive
Browner had the audacity to sit befor the Congressional Black Caucus and say that NAFTA would be great for American workers and the environment; Browner sat down and flat out lied that there were strong environmental and labor standards that could be enforced in NAFTA she said this in Congressional hearings,
Browner sat back and said and did nothig as the Clinton/Gore administration's caved to the paper inustry on dioxin regulations, crumpled under the weight of the tech industry and petro-chemical industry on regulations, sat back and went along with the auto industry on emission standards and said nothing when Congress was changing the tax code to allow people to take an additional credit for the purchase of gas guzzeling trucks and vans. BROWNER IS BUREAUCRAT ALRIGHT ...
A BUREAUCRATIC FAILURE
http://comment-blog.advance.net/cgi-bin/mte/mt-search.cgi?tag=Lisa%20P.%20jackson&blog_id=2882
Weeding Through The Controversy Over Obama's EPA Pick
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/12/11/sorting-the-controversy-over-obama-s-epa-pick.aspx
Jackson EPA nomination debate takes off
Now change is defined as more of the same. If we wanted Clinton we would've voted for it--that is the point.
It is not a question of more "competentence--as if Rubin and Summers, for example hands were clean of the very deregulation that brought us to the brink--when the very policies of change have been rolled back to more of the same. I hope that Obama will not be a cowardly disappointment, but I fear the possibility. when I recall him rallying the Congress to fall in line to reward Wall street, I can't help but feel pessimistic.
If we just wanted four more years of the Clinton administration, we would have elected Hillary.
Why can't Glenn Greenwald understand this?
spin it how you want. when i see some different players ,i'll expect different results.